In this paper, we present a modular system for representing and reasoning with legal aspects of traffic rules for autonomous vehicles. We focus on a subset of the United Kingdom's Highway Code (HC) related to junctions. As human drivers and automated vehicles (AVs) will interact on the roads, especially in urban environments, we claim that an accessible, unitary, high-level computational model should exist and be applicable to both users. Autonomous vehicles introduce a shift in liability that should not bring disadvantages or increased burden on human drivers. We develop a system "in silico" of the model. The proposed system is built of three main components: a natural language interface, using Logical English, which encodes the rules; an internal representation of the rules in Prolog; and an multi-agent-based simulation environment, built in NetLogo. The three components interact: Logical English is translated into and out of Prolog (along with some support code); Prolog and NetLogo interface via predicates. Such a modular approach enables the different components to carry different "burdens" in the overall system; it also allows swapping of modules. Given NetLogo, we can visualize the effect of the modeled rules as well as validate the system with a simple dynamic running scenario. Designated agents monitor the behaviour of the vehicles for compliance and record potential violations where they occur. The information on potential violations is then utilized by Validators, to determine whether the violation is punishable, differentiating between exceptions and cases.

Agents act to bring about a state of the world that is more compatible with their personal or institutional values. To formalise this intuition, the paper proposes an action framework based on the STRIPS formalisation. Technically, the contribution expresses actions in terms of Value-based Formal Reasoning (VFR), which provides a set of propositions derived from an Agent's value profile and the Agent's assessment of propositions with respect to the profile. Conceptually, the contribution provides a computational framework for a form of consequentialist ethics which is satisficing, pluralistic, act-based, and preferential.

We present an approach to reasoning with strict and defeasible rules over literals. A controlled natural language is employed as human/machine interface to facilitate the specification of knowledge and verbalization of results. Reasoning on the rules is done by a direct semantics that addresses several issues for current approaches to argumentation-based defeasible reasoning. Techniques from formal argumentation theory are employed to justify conclusions of the approach; therefore, we not only address automated reasoning but also human acceptance of provided conclusions.